bmw it cars

[zracer22]

First of all, allow me to offer an apology to anyone that I offended earlier. I have no issue with anyone spending as many $$$ as they want to in their IT racing. I am all for capitalism and free enterprise. It's my choice to stay within a set budget. I am very disgusted with the way things are going in IT, but I hold the SCCA to blame. SCCA is very much like our gov't. When the gov't passes a law that turns out to be a bad law, instead of admitting to the error, they just throw more laws and regulations at it. IT was fine just they way it was when the SCCA first introduced it. Then came all the changes. Coil-overs, camber plates, ....., ecu mods, ... I hear that next year they will allow the installation of a Flux Capacitor .

SCCA argues that you can please everyone, but they had better do something to please a majority of us soon. SCCA isn't the only game in town anymore. NASA isn't going away, it is growing. NASA is a cure all either, but it is another option. For example: how many Porsche 944s do you see in ITS fields lately? Answer: Go to a NASA race and watch the 944-Cup race. What will happen if NASA decides to have a 2ndGenRX7-Cup and a 240,260,280Z-Cup? Not to mention the fact that you can race for free with NASA if you are an instructor.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended any of you, my gripe is with the SCCA.

[zracer22]

James,
I'd be interested in hearing more about your Spec E30 class. I was discussing the very same thing with some other E30 racers recently. I heard that Ground Control might actually be interested in getting involved with it.

[James Clay]

Spec E30 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpecE30/

There is an initial rules set there, perhaps it could use a little tweaking still. You can also join the mailing list on that site.

I hope you weren't refering to me above - I am not offended by any discussions on the lists (usually). I agree, it was a fault in the system, not the participants in the system that everyone is complaining about now. Natural selection will usually weed out the top guys - a lot of our customers have figured out it isn't much more expensive to run pro and turn that way quickly.

------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
World Challenge/SCCA/BMWCCA Racecar Rental
Genuine OEM and Used BMW Parts
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------

[golfracer]

Sorry, I did not mean to cause all of this DISCUSSION, my point was just that I know my E36 weights much more than 2850. I like the fact that there are now some german cars fast in ITS, but i just hope that they did not classify a car that was too fast. I guess only time will tell.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
When you class a car in ITS, and it is going to be one of the contenders, then you have to have a mechanism in place to bring the car into the intended performamce envelope if you underestimated its ability. Right now, we don't have that mechanism. When and if the (my edit): Borgward Special starts dominating ITS in competitive pockets across the country, someone needs to take a long hard look at why.

If the top 5 spots (at the ARRC) are Borward Specials, then some eyebrows will be raised.

AB

Andy makes a good point. The club has created a big problem, which is really the result of their success. That success is the creation and gestation of the IT category, which is arguably one of the most popular categories in SCCA, and could be the key to the successful future of the club. The problem is the stated "no guarantee of competitivness" clause, which is really quite annoying at this point.

I changed the references in Andy's post because while the discussion is currently about the E-36, it could be about any model car.

Car classifications and rules changes, when made, should be made across the board, not directly targeted toward a particular person or group that is legally working within the current rule structure and status quo of the class.

James, you said a mouthful there! A prime example of a rule change that WAS made across the board, but only benefits SOME cars in all IT classes is the ECU rule, which was applied to cars previously classified! Suddenly, the Shazamm 500 has another 15 HP! But other whole groups of cars IN THE SAME CLASS don't benefit, and are marginalized!

So, they made an error. Fine. Problem is, there is NO mechanism to fix it! James, I've met Kip and he is no doubt a sharp guy, and from what I see, he is a very talented driver. And no doubt, you guys have done your homework. I remember in an earlier post, you stated that at your levels of prep you felt it was better to not run too many IT events. I disagree....the rules encourage homework...you did it, you should benefit.

But IF there has been a mistake, and whatever car the SCCA classes winds up dominating fields (once the participation numbers are apples to apples, or at least closer, and the results aren't just based on one event), what can be done?

That is the real world test and why final adjustments on racecars are done by drivers instead of computers - numbers are not the bottom line. Quantitative data is BS in this situation because there are way more factors than you are considering. A mathmatical formula will not account for all of them.

Right, but a well thought out formula can get it close. But, even in the most perfect world, it would be very tough for any formula to predict the performance of so many models on so many tracks. In our case, it's unlikely that the powers that be will ever create (or even adopt )such a thing. Hopefully I'm wrong and they will get close. But even if they do, I can't see a world where "tweaking" isn't required.

As it stands now, and this is not limited to ITS, we might have to look at the original statements of competiveness and philosophy...our foundation...if we expect to right a listing house. The house is really not that bad...but the foundation has settled!

CA racers are starting to go to spec classes as a backlash against IT rules creep. I have been working on a Spec E30 class for BMW racers which should begin next year.

I respectfully disagree with you here James....partially.... you have a point that the prep level may be too much for some. But I think most of the guys that are looking at spec series' due to the fact that they have lost faith in the parity of the classes. Certain classes have seen dramatic lap record changes in the past few years due to the inclusion of "overdogs". Rather than selling the perfectly good, once competitive ride, and getting into this years darling, then hoping for the best, they'd rather just go with equal equipment and let the driving decide the issue.

That single fact is the best indicator that the masses want a reasonable shot at being competitive, and some attempt by the SCCA at creating equality is needed.

The bottom line? The board doesn't have IT very high on their "to do" list, and will always refer back to the original paragraph, written decades ago, responding to our letters with a "Not consistant with class philosophy" comment, if we are lucky enough to even get a response!

------------------
Jake Gulick
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 14, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 14, 2002).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by golfracer:
Sorry, I did not mean to cause all of this DISCUSSION...

Not a dang thing wrong with discussion. I just wanted to post my thanks for all of the input from those involved.

Again, I am primarily interested in the classification question from an academic standpoint - it's what I do right now, rather than race - but I am afraid that we are going to have to address this question in a systematic way in the near future.

The classes are based on some assumptions that just don't hold and the changing nature of street cars is going to make current assumptions about IT obsolete within 5 years.

K